Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boston is considered a top tier global city. These cities have prestige. The best and the brightest people commanding top dollar for their skills are drawn to top tier global cities. Because these people command top dollar or salaries they drive up prices and costs in the most sought after neighborhoods that offers the most in terms of commute times, access to public transit, safety and amenity rich environments due to their ability to outbid the average regular Joe. It is comparable to trying to advance from Triple A baseball to the Major Leagues in terms of your market value in the workplace economy. That is what you will have to deal with if you move to Boston.
This is not really true, though it makes sense on a superficial level. There are a vast array of reasons why Boston is too expensive, and it has nothing to do with "top tier" anything. There are just an unreal amount of building regulations, subsidies, etc that jack up prices to obscene levels. Instead of basing your view of the world on the arrogant presupposition that something about Boston is just inherently better (or Major League), consider the case of North Dakota: Highest Rent in United States In Williston North Dakota, Not New York | Time.com .
Quite simply, there is not enough housing in Boston. There could be enough housing, but there isn't. This makes prices rise. If we all of a sudden got rid of all the bureaucratic red tape and housing actually met market demands, rents would fall, but that wouldn't mean Boston was now "triple A."
Maybe this offends people, but Boston is not a "top tier global city" either.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,943,649 times
Reputation: 40635
There can't be MUCH red tape to building housing since it is going up left, right, and center. It has been for many years. Places are built that aren't built, places are torn down to build more and higher.
It's just that it doesn't seem to make sense for developers to build anything but so called "luxury" places.
There can't be MUCH red tape to building housing since it is going up left, right, and center. It has been for many years. Places are built that aren't built, places are torn down to build more and higher.
It's just that it doesn't seem to make sense for developers to build anything but so called "luxury" places.
There is lots of it. The cost of the red tape just gets built into the price. Seeing lots oh housing going up doesn't mean a thing.
This is not really true, though it makes sense on a superficial level. There are a vast array of reasons why Boston is too expensive, and it has nothing to do with "top tier" anything. There are just an unreal amount of building regulations, subsidies, etc that jack up prices to obscene levels. Instead of basing your view of the world on the arrogant presupposition that something about Boston is just inherently better (or Major League), consider the case of North Dakota: Highest Rent in United States In Williston North Dakota, Not New York | Time.com .
Quite simply, there is not enough housing in Boston. There could be enough housing, but there isn't. This makes prices rise. If we all of a sudden got rid of all the bureaucratic red tape and housing actually met market demands, rents would fall, but that wouldn't mean Boston was now "triple A."
Maybe this offends people, but Boston is not a "top tier global city" either.
Okay lets throw out the argument that Boston is a top tier Global city. Boston is suffering the same problem San Francisco, and New York has in that there is a combination of limited geographic area with limited number of neighborhoods that has public transit , safety, a dynamic urban environment with quality amenities. A developer is going to get the most bang for his buck out of luxury buildings aimed at high income individuals in these cities. Unless a person has technical expertise or skills that they can differentiate themselves from others in the economic workforce in that they can command a high salary or is born wealthy they will not be able to afford to live in the most highly sought after areas in these types of cities whose area is constrained by geography and water .
Red tape if there is any may be by design as to keep low income or low to middle income people out of certain areas as to keep the makeup of neighborhood demographics a high income demographic .
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,943,649 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgang239
There is lots of it. The cost of the red tape just gets built into the price. Seeing lots oh housing going up doesn't mean a thing.
BS on it gets built into the price. Total BS. If a unit can rent for $2500, they'll rent for $2500. Cutting the cost to create the unit doesn't mean they will take less money for it. The world doesn't work like that.
And don't give me the equally BS notion that if you cut the red tape that developers will create more mid tier priced units instead of "luxury" units. No, they will not. These luxury units, for the most part, aren't that luxurious. They're pretty standard. It's just marketing crud. They ARE mid tier construction (or worse) and it is just that the market can demand the high prices.
And don't give me the equally BS notion that if you cut the red tape that developers will create more mid tier priced units instead of "luxury" units. No, they will not. These luxury units, for the most part, aren't that luxurious. They're pretty standard. It's just marketing crud. They ARE mid tier construction (or worse) and it is just that the market can demand the high prices.
Remind me where I said that again? Or are you just raging over something you have no clue about?
Oh and bonus question; what building trades have you been involved in recently that would demonstrate how supposedly easy it is to get around the absolute trainwreck of permitting and labor and other headaches that are involved with construction in Boston? And any proof that developers just let those costs and time wasters slide off their back?
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,943,649 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgang239
Remind me where I said that again? Or are you just raging over something you have no clue about?
Oh and bonus question; what building trades have you been involved in recently that would demonstrate how supposedly easy it is to get around the absolute trainwreck of permitting and labor and other headaches that are involved with construction in Boston? And any proof that developers just let those costs and time wasters slide off their back?
Good luck
Reading comprehension total fail. I never said you said it, I said don't say it, it's the normal idiotic comeback people retort with. I also never said it was EASY to build here. Never said it. Never implied it. Read what I actually wrote, not what you want to read.
Yeah, so you believe that if a developer has lower costs, that apartment they can rent for $2500 they'll rent for less even though they can get $2500. They'll out of the goodness of their hearts take less money because the project cost less is the notion you're promoting.
Whether the unit costs X or 2X to construct, they'll maximize their return in the marketplace. That's reality. All that cutting the red tape does is increase profits, and reduces regulatory oversight.
Reading comprehension total fail. I never said you said it, I said don't say it, it's the normal idiotic comeback people retort with. I also never said it was EASY to build here. Never said it. Never implied it. Read whatI wrote, not what you want to read.
Yeah, so you believe that if a developer has lower costs, that apartment they can rent for $2500 they'll rent for less even though they can get $2500. They'll out of the goodness of their hearts take less money because the project cost less.
Whether the unit costs X or 2X to construct, they'll maximize their return in the marketplace. That's reality. All that cutting the red tape does is increase profits, and reduces regulatory oversight.
I'm not talking about rents, I'm talking about building costs. Just like you were (at first anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
There can't be MUCH red tape to building housing since it is going up left, right, and center.
One thing you actually do seem to understand is that that those aren't always tied together. And there's rarely any red tape to renting.
Not at this time. My wife used to work with people with degrees and she was working in the same position as them in Seattle. A degree does not guarantee anything unless it is the right major. And even then. Because a person could go for that major because it makes money and then hates that kind of work, burns out fast and drops completely off the radar.
Then there are those with "non money making" degrees and have done well. It seems more of a personality thing. They tend be highly charismatic and very fun to be around with.
I'm going to lay aside the argument that college is about much more than book-learning in the classroom and the economic value of the degree. But purely on economics -- yes, there are MANY (maybe even most) jobs where what you actually learned in college isn't directly applicable to what you do in your job. And years ago, there were lots of jobs available to people who did not have college degrees. A H.S. degree was sufficient. And the people were perfectly competent and capable of doing their jobs. But, as time passed, and the economy changed, people who had college degrees couldn't find work in their fields. So they began applying for jobs that didn't require a college degree. Then you had employers who, for the same job and for no more pay, could hire people with college degrees rather than people without them. So, eventually, because so many people with degrees applied and they had no problem filling the position with people with college degrees, eventually, as a practical matter, a college degree became a requirement. Not because the job actually needed it, but because plenty of people with them applied. This has happened up the line, too, with various advanced degrees. This is part of why the economy has been hardest on people without college degrees.
There is a big difference between your "paper" qualifications and your actual skills and personality and ability to do various jobs. But unless someone already knows you, there is no way to communicate your actual skills and abilities other than through your degree credentials. Unfair? Sure. But nevertheless, that's the way it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coseau
Okay lets throw out the argument that Boston is a top tier Global city. Boston is suffering the same problem San Francisco, and New York has in that there is a combination of limited geographic area with limited number of neighborhoods that has public transit , safety, a dynamic urban environment with quality amenities. A developer is going to get the most bang for his buck out of luxury buildings aimed at high income individuals in these cities. Unless a person has technical expertise or skills that they can differentiate themselves from others in the economic workforce in that they can command a high salary or is born wealthy they will not be able to afford to live in the most highly sought after areas in these types of cities whose area is constrained by geography and water .
Red tape if there is any may be by design as to keep low income or low to middle income people out of certain areas as to keep the makeup of neighborhood demographics a high income demographic .
Yes, this more than anything is the biggest issue with housing prices. Pure geography. You can only build so much. And you're dealing with transportation infrastructure that is, in some cases, over a century old. If you blew everything up and started from scratch, planning everything with public transit, employers, retail and housing, you'd come up with something different. But we have to deal with things the way they are.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,943,649 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgang239
I'm not talking about rents, I'm talking about building costs. Just like you were (at first anyway).
One thing you actually do seem to understand is that that those aren't always tied together. And there's rarely any red tape to renting.
Good heavens. You said it is built into the price. Did you not even read what you wrote?
The cost of the construction is irrelevant to people, the retail price is what matters. That is the PRICE that is being discussed.
(There is no lack of construction. It is everywhere. It is saturated. So, obviously the costs aren't an issue, it is irrelevant in that regard as well. )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like you were (at first anyway).
